Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qs9v7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T22:16:47.770Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

4 - Design and Implementation of the Stability and Growth Pact: The Perspective of New Member States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 December 2009

Fabrizio Coricelli
Affiliation:
Professor of economics, University of Siena
Anders Aslund
Affiliation:
Institute for International Economics, Washington, DC
Marek Dabrowski
Affiliation:
Center for Social and Economic Research, Warsaw
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Since their entry into the European Union in May 2004, the larger new member states (Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, and Slovakia) have been subjected to the Excessive Deficit Procedure (EDP) of the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) (Box 4.1). Subsequently, the EU has even declared Hungary in a state of excessive deficit. This pattern contrasts with the EU's prior experience. In the past, entry into the European Monetary Union (EMU) was a powerful mechanism to induce EU members, such as Italy, to adjust fiscal policies. In the last few years, however, the SGP has ceased to be an effective constraint on fiscal policy in EU countries.

The decision of the European Council of Economic Ministers (ECOFIN) to halt the EDP for France and Germany has weakened the credibility of EU fiscal rules. The reform of the SGP introduced in March 2005 further worsened the situation by expanding the list of circumstances that allows countries to breach the deficit ceiling of 3 percent of GDP. Countries are now excused not only for exceptional circumstances, such as a decline in output of 2 percent or more, but also for persistent economic slowdowns or for reforms, such as pension reform, that adversely affect the budget. The horizon for adjusting the budget deficit has been lengthened. The special treatment of France and Germany and the SGP reform have sharply increased the arbitrariness in the evaluation of fiscal policy and in the implementation of the SGP. The clear targets and constraints that acceptance to the Eurozone and the SGP once provided for the ten new member states (NMS) have become elusive and “flexible.”

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Annett, Anthony, Decressin, Jörg, and Deppler, Michael. 2005. “Reforming the Stability and Growth Pact.” IMF Policy Discussion Paper 05/2. Washington, D.C.: IMF.Google Scholar
Boeri, Tito. 2000. Structural Change, Welfare Systems, and Labour Reallocation. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Buiter, Willem H. 2004. “To Purgatory and Beyond: When and How Should the Accession Countries from Central and Eastern Europe Become Full Members of EMU?” CEPR Discussion Paper 4342.
Buiter, Willem H., and Grafe, Clemens. 2004. “Patching up the Pact.” The Economics of Transition 12, no. 1: 67–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buti, Marco, and Paul van den Noord. 2003. “Discretionary Fiscal Policy and Elections: The Experience of the Early Years of EMU.” OECD Working Paper 351. Paris: OECD.
Calvo, Guillermo, Izquierdo, Alejandro, and Talvi, Ernesto. 2003. “Sudden Stops, the Real Exchange Rate and Fiscal Sustainability: Argentina's Lessons.” NBER Working Paper 9828. Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau of Economic Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coricelli, Fabrizio. 2002. “Exchange Rate Policy During the Transition to the European Monetary Union: The Option of Euroization.” The Economics of Transition 10, no. 2: 405–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coricelli, Fabrizio, and E. Eianchovina. 2004. “Shocks and Volatility in Accession Countries of Central-Eastern Europe.” Mimeo, the World Bank.
Coricelli, Fabrizio, and Valerio Ercolani. 2004. “Cyclical and Structural Deficits on the Road to Accession: Fiscal Rules for an Enlarged European Union.” In Kopits, George, ed., Rules-Based Fiscal Policy in Emerging Markets. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, and New York: Palgrave-Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Creel, Jerome. 2003. “Ranking Fiscal Policy Rules: The Golden Rule of Public Finance vs. the Stability and Growth Pact.” OFCE 2003–04. Paris: OFCE.Google Scholar
Drazen, Allan. 2004. “Fiscal Rules from a Political Economy Perspective.” In Kopits, George, ed., Rules-Based Fiscal Policy in Emerging Markets. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, and New York: Palgrave-Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Commission. 2003. Public Finances in EMU. Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs, Brussels.
European Commission. 2005. Proposal for a Council Regulation. April 20.
Fatas, Antonio, Hallett, Andrew Hughes, Sibert, Anne, Strauch, Rolf, and Hagen, Jurgen. 2003. Stability and Growth in Europe: Towards a Better Pact. Monitoring European Integration 13. London: CEPR.Google Scholar
Fiorito, Riccardo. 1997. “Stylized Facts of Government Finance in the G-7.” IMF Working Paper 97/142. Washington, D.C.: IMF.Google Scholar
Gali, Jordi, and Perotti, Roberto. 2003. “Fiscal Policy and Monetary Integration in Europe.” Economic Policy 18, no. 37: 533–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gros, Daniel, Castinelli, Massimiliano, Jimeno, Juan, Mayer, Thomas, and Thygesen, Niels. 2002. The Euro at 25: A Special Report on Enlargement. CEPS Macroeconomic Policy Group. Brussels: CEPS.Google Scholar
Kopits, George, and Symansky, Steven A.. 1998. “Fiscal Policy Rules.” IMF Occasional Paper 162. Washington, D.C.: IMF.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kopits, George, and Székely, Istvan P.. 2002. “Fiscal Policy Challenges of EU Accession for Central European Economies.Mimeo, IMF.Google Scholar
Larch, Martin, and Matteo Salto. 2003. “Fiscal Rules, Inertia and Discretionary Fiscal Policy.” European Economy Economic Papers 194. European Commission.
Mendoza, Enrique, and Oviedo, P. Marcelo. 2004. “Fiscal Solvency and Macroeconomic Uncertainty in Emerging Markets: The Tale of the Tormented Insurer.” Mimeo, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Rodrik, Dani. 1998. “Why Do More Open Economies Have Bigger Governments?Journal of Political Economy 106, no. 5: 997–1032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Süppel, Ralph. 2003. “Comparing Economic Dynamics in the EU and CEE Accession Countries.” European Central Bank Working Paper No. 267. Frankfurt: European Central Bank.Google Scholar
Talvi, Ernesto, and Vegh, Carlos. 2000. “Tax Base Variability and Procyclical Fiscal Policy.” NBER Working Paper 7499. Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau of Economic Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×